IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

 

W. P. No. 32232/98 (RES PIL GM)

 

 

Between:

 

1.       G. K. Govinda Rao
161, 36 A Cross
Jayanagar 7th Block
Bangalore 560 082             

 

2.       Environment Support Group
36, Reservoir Road
Basavanagudi
Bangalore 560 004
Represented by its Co-ordinator
Mr. Leo F. Saldanha                                                                        ………..Petitioners                                                 

And:

 

State of Karnataka

Vidhana Soudha

Bangalore 560 001

Represented by its Chief Secretary                                            ……….Respondents

 

 

 

1.       K. Bhujanga
S/o S. J. Krishna Murthy
Aged about 34 years
No. 570, 6th Main
3rd Block, HBR Layout
Bangalore 560 084

 

2.       Sampath
S/o Late Appanna Iyengar
Aged about 63 years
No. 354, 7th Cross
Rajmahal Vilas Extension
Bangalore 560 080

 

3.       N. Richard
S/o Late A. P. Richard
Aged about 48 years
No. 1978/1
Hennur Main Road
Kacharkanahalli
Bangalore – 560 084                                                …………Impleading Applicants

 

 

Rejoinder/Objection Statement filed by the Second Petitioner to IA No.     in the aforesaid Writ Petition

 

 

1.       First and foremost the petitioner wishes to submit to this Hon’ble Court that the Impleading Applicants, in so approaching the Court in the public interest, seem to have completely missed the point being agitated here.   For as has been stated in the Impleading Application of the petitioner, the matter being agitated is the very basis of the de-notification of the Cubbon Park, which the Petitioner believes was conducted in a wholly unconstitutional manner and against the wider public interest.  Such being the case, and notwithstanding the genuine public cause the Impleading Applicants wish to represent here, the Petitioner strongly contests the basis of the statement in para 6 of the IA wherein it is stated that: “The applicants submit that the said land at no point forms part of the Cubbon Park”.  To highlight that the said LRDE area was handed over by the Defense authorities to the State of Karnataka only for the purposes of maintaining as a “park, planetarium, etc.” and not for any other purpose whatsoever, including public utilities, the Petitioner presents a letter in clarification written by Dr. Raja Ramanna, former Defense Minister, in Deccan Herald, 14 November 1998, as Annexure A.

2.       A Water Reservoir is a very huge and complicated facility involving laying of a vast network of pipes both for inflow and outflow of water.  Further, it involves various attendant facilities such as a power house, office and administrative block, maintenance facilities, etc.  Considering the extensive nature of such a facility, even if the area sought for is only 70 x 100 sq. metres as claimed, the fact remains that pending the adjudication of the de-notification presently challenged, no construction, of whatever extent can be termed legal, and in the public interest, even when the claimed purpose is that of providing potable water. 

3.       Especially considering the extensive facilities that are needed in maintaining a water reservoir, even if it is of a submerged type, the fact remains that the LRDE portion of Cubbon Park will suffer irreversibly, and would, if allowed, lead to the destruction of all the trees in the area.  It may also be pointed out at this juncture, that such piecemeal extraction of Cubbon Park’s area for other purposes than the maintenance as a Park, in the LRDE area, has already rendered a vast stretch being occupied for an office block of the Bangalore Metropolitan Regional Development Authority, a musical fountain, parking lots, etc.  In such view, if a water reservoir were also allowed, the LRDE portion of Cubbon Park would be a mass of construction with public utilities and office blocks.  This would not only violate the law, but would also be counter-productive as far as the public interest is concerned.

4.       The BWSSB has repeatedly encroached on various parks and open spaces across the city to develop water reservoirs, whilst sub-letting or developing its own designated areas for purposes other than so allowed.  A graphic example of this is the Basava Bhavan, which is property originally assigned to BWSSB for developing as a Water Reservoir, where now stands a office block and a kalyana mantap.  Whilst such being the case, it is probable that in time, if the LRDE space is allowed for a water reservoir, then it may most probably be developed into an altogether different purpose.

5.       If indeed a water reservoir is needed to augment the city’s water supplies, then a more ideal location would be a portion of the present Bangalore Golf Club, which serves no public purpose, but merely the recreational activity of a few elite members of the Bangalore Gold Association.  Considering that the Club has already set aside a portion of this property, which rests with the State of Karnataka, for the purposes of a sewage water treatment plant, the same area may be extended to provide BWSSB for developing the water reservoir.  If this is considered difficult due to problems of space, than another alternative in an equally elevated region of High Grounds is the Bangalore Turf Club.  This area is once more a vast expanse, being put for the exclusive benefit of speculators, and it is difficult to see why a portion of this land cannot be used for developing the said water reservoir in the public interest.

6.       Finally, keeping in view the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M. I. Builders Pvt. Ltd vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu and others [1994 (4) SCALE], the Bench consisting of S. B. Majumdar and D. P. Wadhwa, JJ. in their judgement dated 26 July 1999 have held that it is unconstitutional and against the wider public interest to allow for the development of any sort of construction that violates the principles laid down in the relevant acts protecting Parks and Open Spaces.  Laying down the Public Trust Doctrine as fundamental to offering protection to such Public Spaces, the Court even went to the extent of ordering demolition of an underground Shopping Complex that had been built unconstitutionally in the Jhandelwala Park of Lucknow, a park as historical and equal in ecological importance to Lucknow, as Cubbon Park is to Bangalore.  In view of this judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the public interest cause raised by the Impleading Applicants is wholly unconstitutional.

Wherefore, the Petitioner respectfully prays this Hon’ble Court to be pleased to reject the Impleading Application.

 

Bangalore                                                                                             Second Petitioner

Date:
 

 

Verification:

 

Verified at Bangalore on this the 20th day of September 1999 that the contents of this objection/rejoinder statement are true to the best of my knowledge, belief and information.

 

                                                                                               

                                                                                                            Second Petitioner